First, although goal-setting is one of the most widely used interventions in applied
sport psychology, most athletes rate goals as being “only moderately effective” (Burton
et al., 2001, p. 497) facilitators of performance. This is largely because sport performers
are not entirely clear about how best to maximise the effectiveness of their goals. In the
next section of this chapter, we shall consider some practical ways of setting effective
goals. Second, there is general agreement among researchers that specific goals are more
effective than general goals, vague goals or no goals at all (Hall and Kerr, 2001). This
finding, which is called the “goal specificity” effect, may be attributable to the greater
precision of specific goals than general goals. However, an important caveat must be
noted here. To explain, research on goal-setting in sport shows that it may not provide
any incremental benefits to athletes who are already motivated to do their best (a
phenomenon called the “ceiling effect”; see also Box 2.6). This point is illustrated by the
fact that not all top athletes set goals for their performance. For example, as we learned
earlier in this chapter, the Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar claimed that he does not set
any goals before matches. Another complicating factor here is that the complexity of the
skill in question may serve as a mediating variable. Thus Burton (1989) investigated the
effects of specific versus general goals on basketball skills of varying degrees of
complexity. Results showed that although specific goals did enhance performance
relative to general goals as predicted, this benefit was mediated by the level of
complexity of the task—a fact which had not been predicted. As a third general finding in
goal-setting research, Burton et al. (2001) claim that performance goals are more
effective than result goals in improving athletic performance— presumably because the
former type of goals facilitate improved concentration processes in athletes (see also
Chapter 4 for a discussion of goal-setting as a concentration technique). It should be
noted, however, that goal-setting practice studies show that athletes tend to set both types
of goals—performance and result—equally often (ibid.). A fourth general finding in the
goal-setting research literature is that athletes and coaches are not systematic in writing
down their goals (Weinberg, 2002). Fifth, research has accumulated on the “goal
proximity” prediction—namely, the suggestion that short-term goals should be more
effective motivationally than long-term goals. Surprisingly, this hypothesis has received
only modest support in sport and exercise psychology (Hall and Kerr, 2001). Sixth, a
number of practical barriers appear to hamper goal-setting practices among athletes.
These barriers include such factors as a lack of time and distractions arising from social
relationships (Weinberg, 2002). Seventh, the relationship between goals and performance
is mediated by a host of intervening variables. For example, the level of ability of the
performer, the extent to which s/he is committed to the goal, and the quantity and quality
of feedback provided are all important factors in moderating the influence of goals on
performance (Hall and Kerr, 2001). Finally, research evidence is accumulating to suggest
that goal-setting skills can be taught to athletes. Thus Swain and Jones (1995) used a
single-subject, multiple-baseline research design to examine the effects of a goal-setting
intervention programme on the selected basketball skills (e.g., getting rebounds) of four
elite university performers over a series of sixteen matches in a competitive season.
Results showed that the intervention yielded significant positive effects on the targeted
basketball skills for three out of four of the participants in the study.
In addition to the preceding findings, research in sport and exercise psychology has
yielded two recurrent themes: “first, goals work well in sport, but not as well as in
Motivation and goal-setting in sport 55